Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Kunja Bihari Swain – Appellant
Versus
Bigneswar Swain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cmp challenges prior court order (Para 1) |
| 2. parties' arguments on impleading (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. nature of necessary and proper parties (Para 3 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis on party inclusion rules (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. conditions for third-party involvement (Para 9) |
| 6. conclusion: order set aside (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Present CMP is directed against order dated 29th April 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), First Court, Cuttack passed in C.S.No.160 of 2012, wherein the prayer of Defendant No.8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by learned trial court to add 3rd party Defendant No.11.
3. Present Petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit praying for declaration of right title interest over the suit schedule land, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. After the evidence was closed from the side of the plaintiffs and at the stage of adducing of evidence from the side of Defendant No.8, the petition dated 13th September 2024 was filed by him to implead one Manasmita Senapati as Defendant No.11 on the ground that she purchased part of suit land pending the lis from Plaintiff No.1 violating the interim order of s
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
Lis pendens purchasers are not necessary or proper parties in a specific performance suit, as their absence does not impede the passing of an effective decree.
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
A pendente lite purchaser can be added as a party to ongoing litigation to protect substantial interests, and such applications should typically be granted without prejudice.
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
